Pixlers

I know this is an old post, but I would really like to have this feature. Show the sketch artists some love?

It would make drawing straight lines for design work much easier.
 
PIXEL and BRUSH TOOLS
Holding down Shift Key constrains tool to straight vertical and horizontal lines.

Every filter should have an option to adjust all its variable values with free selectable alpha channel. That would be an unique selling point, not evenPhotoshop can do this.  B)

The solution could be a 'base grid' = 'construction plane', which defines the 2D space to which everything relates. Now it's fixed to the page.
Every CAD or 3D program has this, but of course it makes also sense in 2D
This plane would be placeable/rotateable freely.
 
In Photoshop or Illustrator, if you click/drag the corner of the page ruler, you can place the origin at least - something not possible in Affinity yet.
If you could also rotate this base point, you would get what I mean.
 
The Transform panel should reflect the base plane, as well as guides, and also brush strokes.
It would be sufficient then to have SHIFT-draw snap to 45° angles, like we know from Photoshop etc.
 
If we think it through, the Transform Panel could have a mode "page/world" (the values would be relative to the page), and "plane" (values would be relative to the base plane).
That's how it works in 3D software, called differently, of course.
 
Best
Eugen

Hi!
Please introduce the ability to freely Distort any bitmap or vector graphics group, by simply moving any corner point!
I'm aware that you will bring a Mesh Distort Tool. Ideally, if you set it up with no subdivisions, it would work like mentioned.
 
Thanks a lot!
Best regards
Eugen
 

Every filter should have an option to adjust all its variable values with free selectable alpha channel. That would be an unique selling point, not evenPhotoshop can do this.  B)

You need to export as a PDF from Rhino.
 
AD's AI import relies on the embedded PDF stream in an AI file. Rhino evidently doesn't export an AI file with the extra PDF stream.

You're welcome, Alfred.
 
The great thing about nodes is that you can easily reconnect them. So if you, for example, reconnect the "wire" that goes into the "hue" parameter to go into the "value" parameter (by dragging the "plug"), you get something like a red rose. Or you can connect them both to get a different result again. Even more, all this could be easily reconnected to get a distortion filter for an actual image. Or to specify this spiral as parameter for any other filter... truly endless this stuff. It would be great if there was an open format for this, to share nodes between applications.
 
I've got some more examples attached. This is all achieved just by changing some values, adding a few nodes or reconnecting them.

Photoshop has traditionally had the Select > Color Range command. There is also HSL keying inside the Hue/Saturation adjustment toolset, which, annoyingly cannot be used to create selections for use with other commands without clumsy workarounds (that I know much better than I would care to admit). 
 
What I am hoping to see is a non-destructive way to do masking based on luminance, HSL tools, as well as possibly more sophisticated keying algorithms that are found in video software (Primatte, Keylight, etc.). Most video-focussed color correction software (DaVinci Resolve, Speedgrade, Lustre, Baselight, FilmMaster, Assimilate Scratch) allows for non-destructive HSL keying already.
 
The most elegant way I can imagine this working inside Photo is that similar to regular layer masks, a new procedural mask layer type for non-destructive HSL/Select Color Range masks with adjustable parameters would be available. Like an adjustment layer, except that the result would be a mask instead of an RGBA image, to be used just like regular layer masks.
 
That way, it would be easy to adjust the selection parameters interactively after the fact, and, if need be, rasterize destructively to a regular raster mask layer. In additions to the keying in Luma, RGB, HSL, YUV and LAB, parameters for blurring the result, expanding/contracting the mask would be useful. The exact same functionality could then double as a vastly improved "Select Color Range" command as well.

save as ... different file formats
 
why not being straight forward instead of having to save in affinity format and then using export?

This is my question also.  I am rapidly falling in LOVE with Affinity - GREAT WORK!
 
...However, the dysfunctional "Save As" dialog severely hampers my workflow.  Part of my process is to create and save variations on images.  Being able to "Save As" in the SAME file format as the original, back in the SAME folder as the original, with a minimum of clicks is a very basic kind of operation.  The "Export" dialog does allow you to accomplish this, but it requires more work, especially as it does not default back to the same folder the original file came from.
 
I would so love to move away from Photoshop.  I do hope you'll consider changing this to the (very functional) way that most applications (yes, Photoshop) behave.
 
Thanks!
-Jim

Our plan is to change the Export Persona to offer a hierarchical list of exports setup for each object - where you can add different size variants or format variants. We aren't just going to squish lots of extra things onto the existing dialogs just to make it work - we want to do it properly. As of yet the feature request you added hasn't been actioned, but it was already planned and will be implemented as soon as we can action it. We have had to focus on other areas to date - but this will start to be implemented in the coming months, I hope :)  As I'm sure you know, features take time - and there are an awful lot of features we're trying to add - it isn't just a day by day checklist - it's weeks or months of work for each feature, realistically, and there are only so many resources at present.
 
Thanks again for your patience,
Matt

I could not agree more strongly - nodes are the future of Image editing, and it would bring a real cutting edge to Affinity if they would include the compositor style workflow as an persona; the traditional layer system won't diseappear anytime soon I'm afraid.
 
perhaps it could be implemented as a "Composite layer"; you could add this placeholder layer into your layer stack, then switch to the Node Compositor Persona and make your nodes edits, which would then be piped back into the layer stack for continued editing if desired.
 
   What make node compositor style editing so powerful is that you can split mulitiple branches off of one image, apply effects separatly and recombine the image later down the line using a multitude mixing/masking methods.
   This kind of edit in a traditional layer system would require many copies of the orginal image to start with and a lot of hacking around with groups and masks, which is much less flexible to work with.

Second that. That would be a real improvement how to work with images. As much as I love what affinity serif is pulling of here the UI and basic concept of the "photoshop" workflow didn't change with Affinity Photo. It just looks like a photoshop clone. Which is a good thing to bring over all the old school photoshoppers but lacks improving the user experience. 

hi,
i am excited with the affinity photo. its fast and looks real alternative to photoshop. i have been big fan of deviance resolve and nuke. the node base workflow is far advance to layer based work flow.
i think if the code is all new and still developing its the perfect time to integrate node base editing along with layer base workflow. 
 

That's actually a very good request. I would even go a few steps farther. I think the biggest hurdle for this, would be the user interface. But a node editor could be a solution to this, like Blender or the Unreal Engine has. I think I'll even make a separate feature request for that, if there isn't one already. That would make me uncontrollably throw an exorbitant amount of money to the screen. By the way, Photoshop can't do a lot of things that Affinity Photo can.

It would be nice to have a blur filter with variable kernel size based on a BW layer or a mask. This is in particular useful when a depth map is available. This is for example the case when post processing CG. In some cases it is also quit easy to generate an approximate depth map based on some photography, either using some mesh or a stereo pairs.  

I also stumbled on the "Merge Visible" option, as I was expecting it to merge all visible layers into 1 - but it instead merged all visible layers into a "New" layer.  Not what I was expecting, but I wanted the merge to new layer option anyway :)
 
I made a feature request for renaming it here:
 
https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/29380-list-of-minor-improvements-features/
 
HTH.

As a long-term Mac user, I don't get it what this has to do with macOS. This behavior is just wrong.   Merge means to merge existing things together into a new one and not to make a new one and also keep the old things.  :huh:

Firstly, thank you again for Affiinty Designer. I'm really loving designing in it and how the features are growing!
 
One thing which I would find really useful would be able to increase fonts by a single unit. I know that you can already use the up and down arrow keys for that, however you have to click out of the box for the new size to take effect.
 
So, either please can the font scale as the units increase / decrease, in the same was as it does with the dropdown or can we have little up and down clickers next to the dropdown selector.
 
Thanks.
 
And, yes I created the very rough mockup in AD :D

Hi MEB,
thank you for the warm welcome.
 
That sounds great!  B)

Using the Layers -> Merge Visible command, AP creates a new layer without removing the existing ones.  I expect all visible layers to be merged into a one layer and then the individual visible layers be deleted.  This is how basically every other application works.
 
Is this the expected behaviour?
 
(Merge Down works as I expect: combines two layers into one, so that only one remains.)

I've found that Affinity Designer's Expand Stroke function is pretty terrible. It creates way too many points on the path. I've also found that with lines that have had their pressure adjusted, the ends are expanded using corner node, so they loose the smooth curve of the original.
 
I've included a screenshot to illustrate what I'm talking about. A 2 node straight line with rounded end caps is expanded to have 22 points. A straight line with the pressure adjusted is no better and the ends loose their curve and become sharp points. A curved line with adjusted pressure is just plain ridiculous. And there is no function to simplify the shape, so you can't get rid of all the extra point easily.
 
Just don't expanded the stroke then? I wouldn't for an illustration normally, but when I want to make a SVG for web, I need to expand the strokes when I've adjusted the pressure because pressure adjustments don't translate into the SVG file. All the extra points ends up bloating the size the of the SVG and the pointed line ends look kind of crappy.
 
I'd really love to see that improved.
 
I'm loving Affinity Designer, especially after the 1.5 update.
 
Keep it up
– Pete

I don't often call my mechanic when the car works fine, and I don't call my designer when the website does everything I want.
 
You contact these people when there are features you'd like to see in the product you want to use.
 
I like Affinity's software, I like the way they run, mostly, but there are things they do that are weird, features that I think should be in there or work differently, and things that are bugs.  
 
We're not complaining and I think you're looking at this from a really weird perspective if you think we are.  We're collaboratively attempting to build a better product.

One could also see this as an evolution on both sides.  First, we had beta available for us to test and help Serif identify and work out bugs to get a functional program out to the public.  Now that it's released, choose whether or not you want to pay for it.  I, for one, am happy to jump at the chance to ditch Adobe and go for a good contender that offers a perpetual license for a one-time cost.  If by "premium," you mean to say that it can't hold a candle to Photoshop, I can't really address this, as I've not gotten familiar enough with Affinity to say.  That said, if by Serif asking us for feature requests means that we get their product to evolve into something we feel really is a true contender to Photoshop or some other Adobe product, and they act on those requests, then both sides win.  Even if they add features and call it Affinity <insert product name here> 2.0 and sell it at the same price again or at an increased price, then we still win.  It sure beats the heck out of a subscription.
 
That said, as it stands for me, Photoshop is still on top (time will tell as I get more familiar with Affinity), but I've already found free alternatives to Illustrator, Dreamweaver, and Acrobat that I find more capable.  Photoshop and InDesign are really the only products left that I find are worth keeping, until something better comes along.  I also only use my CS3 for now, as I don't and won't bother with subscriptions and skipped the later versions.  As soon as I can ditch Adobe I will and it won't matter if they go back to perpetual licenses (which I know they won't).  I would gladly pay a little more (or in this case, a little less) not to have to deal with Adobe again.
 
The notion that people don't want to pay for premium is rather off.  Sure, some won't pay more than they can afford or would otherwise pay and, for that matter, some would even steal it if they can.  Most of us who pay and work professionally with programs like this would actually consider paying more, but we didn't set the price and are likely glad to see we're not getting shafted by paying a lot for a program that's likely to evolve greatly in the coming months/years.